[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Sat, 24 Mar 2001 17:09:48 +0100
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:31:02PM +1030, Michael Talbot-Wilson wrote:
> At 2001-03-19 18:38 +1200, Keith Hopper wrote:
> > In article
> > <address@hidden>,
> > Michael Talbot-Wilson <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Sizes of executables (all stripped)
> > > hello.c -> gcc -> 2772
> > > hello.sa -> GNU Sather 1.3.b7 -> 506040
> > Fully culture-sensitive run-time engine which includes about 400k of
> > initialisation code which is run before sather-main gets a chance. It is
> > ridiculous, but almost every constant is not handled at compile time by
> > gcc. I know - it's daft - but there you have gcc. If I could only think
> I know _something_ here is daft, but I'm not certain that it is gcc.
> Hasn't there been some loss of a sense of proportion?
That does not have anything to do with "sense of proportion" - the huge size
simply should be blamed to the current compiler. It is known, that the compiler
sucks in a number of edges, but at the moment, it is the only means to compile
Sather code at all. There is no point at all to discuss problems that will be
solved by a new compiler.
Also, I do not know, whether you are aware, that stripping a compiled sather
program does not throw away very much: unless you compile a program without any
checks (pre- post, etc.) it will contain much bloat that will not be cut away
as symbolic info.
-- JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!
-- To Him, even that machine here has to obey...
-- _________________________________Norbert "Nobbi" Nemec
-- Hindenburgstr. 44 ... D-91054 Erlangen ... Germany
-- eMail: <address@hidden> Tel: +49-(0)-9131-204180
|[Prev in Thread]
||[Next in Thread]|
- Re: Growth,
Norbert Nemec <=